"if you can write a character with an interesting personality...

what if it is unlikely but still plausible within the setting?

>"if you can write a character with an interesting personality, everything else that is needlessly tacked onto it in a special-snowflake esque way will fade into the background after a few hours of play."
says who? you?
why would an unrelated characteristic change how you perceive the others?
why would it take hours?

are you sure you aren't describing how a pro can bring you to bear with the smell of the cons?
why do you pretend it isn't always better to not have the cons around?

It's not always a question of "plausible within the setting", it's also a question of "suitable for the tone of the game" and "reasonable for level x(or equivalent) character". A backstory where the character single-handedly kills a dozen bandits can be perfectly plausible within the setting, but is probably not fitting for a level 2 character under most circumstances. Similarly, a black market arms-dealer with access to extraordinary amounts of ordinance can be a fun character, but is probably not the best fit for a Call of Cthulhu campaign. But hey, maybe you can convince me otherwise. Just don't throw a fit if you don't get your way.

because even things plausible within the setting will often be thrown out by paranoid GMs if he seems certain aspects as "unnecessary", such as playing a non-human despite having the race not carry any significant/special meaning for the characterisation.

i am also talking about the principle in general, here. and that having only the setting itself as a restriction rather than an additional imposed design policy will improve the overall climate of the group

one of these things belongs to a balancing of gameplay-power, while the thing about having more power in the background than shown in stats is certainly the case of implausible, as long as the player can not explain the differences in perceived poerlevels

if your character has needlessly-tacked on features, they are poorly-designed. start over.

if your race isn't important to the character, then you won't mind changing it.

If those features are needlessly tacked on, then you already have a problem.
But this is my shit smells better than yours the thread, so who cares.

Why should I change something like race that the character wouldn't get to choose themselves, so long as the cultural motes of that race are present, fit the theme of the game and are not disruptive to the party?

so that I don't beat your ass and throw you out of my house, you self-absorbed faggot.

you seem just as self absorbed, there

nah

you felt the necessity to reply to me there? how insecure are you man

lol mad :)

well. heh. *sniff*. maybe
just a bit you Not so nice guy

Not him, but "snowflakishness" begins as soon as the player creates a character that is fundementally distinct from the rest of the party for no other reason than because they want to be unique and stand out from the crowd with no regards to how such a character would fit within the dynamic of the party.

If everyone's playing humans, elves, and dwarves in a serious low-magic campaign centered around the black plague, a snowflake will create a loli kitsune sorcerer who cracks jokes while firebombing bandits.

If everyone's playing dragonborn, gnomes, and humans in a light-hearted high magic campaign centered around restoring day to a land cursed with eternal night, the snowflake will create a dour stick-in-the-mud Rogue who waxes poetic about CRAWLING IN MY SKIIIIN! nonsense when everything else is relatively more comedic and low-stakes.

And it doesn't matter if their character is disruptive as hell either, because all attention is good in the eyes of snowflakes.

I disagree, as a lot of games are basically underscored by group of very different individuals that come together as a group, and ignores the actions/roleplay of the player, instead ascribing whole importance on the words on paper.
I had once made a dragonborn paladin for a lark, and found out from the DM months into the campaign that I was the world's ONLY dragonborn, which made me try harder to live up to the image of just and gracious. Even then, just because I was a dragonborn didn't men I rubbed it in people's faces that I was the "chosen", it was just what I was, and I put my trousers on at the start of the day like everyone else, despite the stares.
Snowflakeness starts when the player is different and acts like they are special, dare I say better, due to that alone, without having to prove themselves or their mettle.

In both your examples, the snowflakishness is unrelated to the race.
A kitsune is neither better nor worse than an elf for "serious low-magic plague campaign", the issue was one of personality and class. And paedophilia.
And fuck, you didn't even assign a race to the dick ass rogue.

Furufe de fabera, sosu

Certain races facilitate snowflakishness moreso than others.

It's hard to stand out as a human among Elves and Dwarves, but if that human was suddenly a Half-Orc (abloo bloo muh mother was raped), Tiefling (abloo bloo muh devil gene), or Aasimar (abloo bloo muh inhenrently goodness among a world of gray) and suddenly you have a snowflake who forces all the attention onto themselves because their race gives them all the tragedy without none of the nuance to actually make them an interesting character.

No, you just have a faggot who treats each race as a vehicle for his faggotry. He can do it just as well with anything else.
The solution is to slap him and tell him to make better characters, not to put a band-aid on and let him fester.

>No, you just have a faggot who treats each race as a vehicle for his faggotry.
Well it's much easier to ban whole races than deal with having too few people in the party. Besides, it's no big loss, only faggots pick those classes anyways.

So what stops the semi-humans from having nuance in their tragic backstories the way full humans can?

They ugly.

I thought aasimar were supposed to be pretty good looking unless they get a particularly bad roll on the random mutation table.

When you pick human, you actually have to work to insert tragedy and depth into your backstory because generally, humans don't get dick as far as racial backgrounds are concerned.

With semi-humans though, all the busywork is done for you. Tieflings are hated because they look demonic, Aasimars have a chip on their shoulders, Half-Orcs are either rape babies or suffer from racism, etc.

Sure, but just because the theme of your tragedy is pre-written doesn't mean your character's story can't handle it in a nuanced way.

>humans don't get dick as far as racial backgrounds are concerned.
That is entirely untrue, tho.
What you are referring to is gross pop culture shit, like someone got all of their information watching Critical Roll and felt that was the whole of gaming.
You are literally hedging an argument on normie tier shit that is ALSO edition dependent; what you said about Aasimar doesn't apply outside 5e, Tieflings in 3e or Half orcs in 4e.

People who default on racial themes usually aren't the type to know how to utilize them in a nuanced way.

See: Every dickass Rogue who describes their character dressed in black while sitting in the corner of the tavern.

>Snowflakeness starts when the player is different and acts like they are special, dare I say better, due to that alone, without having to prove themselves or their mettle.
this is the true man's answer
any character concept is capable of being done well, treat everything on a case-by-case basis instead of merely deciding that some ideas are inherently unsalvageable

Go play with other people. All the GMs with sense will just filter out half-bodak were-beavers with dark pasts and long bangs and get on with our lives.

When you learn to write a character thats not a desperate cry for attention, you can come to the adult's table. That or you can just find an Exalted or WoD group. You'll fit right in.

As a GM who invests time in his games, Im not willing to take the risk sometimes. If somebody comes to me with something thats off the fucking wall, what promise is there that their roleplay will be any less nontraditonal and self-serving? The best test for character features is to have the player explain who the character is, then have them explain the same traits in reverse order without ever saying the word "also". If the description is coherent this test should work most of the time.

If you are not willing to extend trust to the players, do you expect the players to trust you?
As a GM, there is ALWAYS times when you do something and it seems extremely fishy to the players. It is trust and faith that the GM will do right by them that keeps them from calling you out. It's a two way street, and I'd be hesitant at any GM that won't proffer the hand.
It's all a part of the social aspect of gaming. That said, I've been burned, but I always handled those players/charaters and it didn't happen twice. As a player, I've run some out there concepts, and the GM extended trust I would do right, and I did so, leading to some very memorable pcs for all involved.

Im investing more time on prep and/or models. My comfort matters more. Additionally there are more players than GMs. Its a shitty attitude, but the concerns and comfort of a GM matter more than that of his players.

I do my best to collaborate with my players and suggest things that more match the tone of the game. I frequently ask players why they make one character background choice instead of another to encourage them to really drill down to the core of their character. I try to workshop these things, but some players are hellbent on an attention-powertrip and its just a waste of everybody's time.

The argument here seems to be that playing a weird character race or background doesnt take away from the character's potential to be good, and I accept that premise fully. However, whatever is gained by playing something weird is immediately overridden by how inconvenient and awkward it can be to kick a bad player out of a game. Its risk reward, and I (along with many other GMs) have decided its not worth the risk. Its the equivalent of eating Foogoo; you're taking a risk for virtually no reward that could not be obtained under other circumstances.

If you want a more concrete argument, the best one is that of theater of the mind. People understand common things. They know dwarves are angry, conservative, warlike, but loyal. They know elves are aloof but skillful. People have mixed impressions of uncommon things, and that mixed impression can lead to dissonance between player's impression of characters and events which can be hard to reconcile, and can sometimes bring the game to a stop. It doesnt happen all the time, but it can, and the risk of that is greater than the reward of having a character who lost their brood of eggs rather than their babies.

>how inconvenient and awkward it can be to kick a bad player out of a game
Maybe for you.
I've done it plenty of times, I consider it a part of the job. Further, I have absolute trust in my group that they can make damn near any concept they bring to me work, and if they have something outrageous, it's because they are inspired.
Maybe I'd feel different if I played with randos all the time, but I don't. Trust was extended and rewarded. That said, if I say "I am looking for XYZ character archetypes in this game", like I did for a game of Werewolf where I expressly wanted every day joe pcs, they will also follow that directive, trusting that my restriction is there for good reason and it will add to the game and it's immersion. It's much different than the GM thread going on now where people are bitching that how dare a GM restrict options available for any reason.

If its a group I trust its a group I trust. If its strangers, I just dont. The other wrinkle is none of my long time players would bring me such an idiotic character because they're not children jumping for the attention of the narrative. If you're lucky enough to have players you've known for a while in every game, good for you. You're not who this conversations is about. Clearly. We're talking about trust, and you're basing everything on interactions where trust is not an issue.

No, I'm basing them on interactions where trust had to be extended and built upon. Most of my group I've known for 3+ years, but I remember my best player had just moved into the area, walked up to my group at the FLGS and asked us what we were playing.
I believe it is critically important for a GM to give his players the benefit of the doubt, rather than this relatively recent concept that all players/GMs are shit until they show otherwise. Maybe I'm just a grognard from a different time, been doing this for longer than some of my players have been alive. To me, it's just unfathomable that I can't bring a well thought idea to a GM because they will shoot it down because it exists, not because there is something functionally wrong with it or grates against the campaign themes. It's not the same as saying no, you can't bring a necromancer to a big good guy hero game.

>half orcs have to be the product of rape
>aasimar have to be upset the world isn't uber good
>all these sweeping generalizations

You must be fun to play with.

In all seriousness, I get what you are trying to say but banning the races are not the answer. If a snowflake wants to play a snowflake, they are going to play a snowflake. They'll just default to new and exciting ways. My favorite one to see is princes, either of a fallen land or one that adventures in secret.

Snowflakes will always find a way. The game isn't at fault, the player is in this case for confusing "different" with "interesting". The faster you explain that to them, the better. And if they don't accept it, kick em. I know from experience that it's worth it.

It seems to me you have a circle of quality players, which makes you an outlier.

your argument doesn't take into account the fact that it could be two different people playing those characters. player from example A would still probably make their kitsune sorcerer in campaign B, and player B would make their edgelord in campaign A.

look at this moth

Yes, I think it best you do.

it doesn't necessarily begin with "my character is race x just because," it usually begins with "my character is different than the other PCs, and the vast majority of NPCs," but it depends on the setting really.
If you choose to play a homebrew Half-Demon Half-gnome Cursed Dragonknight in a dungeons and dragons game with a fairly generic fantasy setting, you're a snowflake.
If what a character is or what they can do comparative to other people determines who they are, they are probably a snowflake.
If how a character acts and what they have done in the past determine who they are more than what they are, they're probably not a snowflake.
Actually in hindsight I'm very stupid and bad at wording things and should not post this but I'm going to press post before I can stop myself

>If what a character is or what they can do comparative to other people determines who they are, they are probably a snowflake.
>If how a character acts and what they have done in the past determine who they are more than what they are, they're probably not a snowflake.
And if the discrepancy between these two factors is what determines who they are, it's yet another drizzt knockoff?

You sound like a douchebag.

I like playing snowflakes. Of course, since the rest of our party is, I don't think there's really a problem with it.

My latest is a Githyanki Incarnate, loaded up full of perception and travel soulmelds (for now). Acts as a 'seeker' for the Gith, an exploratory type who is as close to 'spy' and 'assassin' as the Gith get, which is mostly just 'waltz in, interrogate people, kill the target'.

She's fun, mostly because being a member of an incredibly war-like and ruthless race has an interesting interaction with being a 'curious wanderer'.

It's always funny to ask the leader of the party if she should prepare to behead another partymember for their rebellion, whenever they vote not to do something the leader suggested.

If your character isn't human, then he is snowflake.

Simple as that.

>D&D babbies are so prevalent and so intellectually malnourished that 'special snowflake' now means 'playing one of the weirder races from D&D'

Incredible.

if everyone is special, no one is

I'll play a goddamned lizardman or golem variant in any game that lets me and your autism isn't going to stop me, Veeky Forums.

Joke's on you, i'm the GM of the campaign and first sentence in my campaign will be about your execution by townsfolk, with rest of the party watching and cheering.

I'm more than fine with wasting the time of special snowflake faggots.

It will stop you when I just kick you out for being an attention whore. Go stream yourself masturbating on Twitch. It'll save us all a lot of time.

I always thought a snowflake was when the player is pretentious enough to believe their character archetype is original and indeed special when it has in actuality they've only hacked together a frankenstein of cliches. The player doesn't go back to what makes the tropes they're trying to imitate work, only taking superficial surface elements.

No you won't. You'll smile and take it, then write angry greentext about how that guy ruined your campaign. That is, if you game at all.

That is a cute thing.
It has a penis doesn't it?

No penis, it just likes to stab shota robots and check their dicks to confirm their identity.

Be nice to shota robots. They have feelings too.

Okay I needed a new character so I made something up just now, tell me if it's snowflakey.
>A half-orc paladin
>His father was a rather unimportant warlord before converting and becoming one of the faith's greatest Champions
>His mother was a devout but yet very ordinary human woman, and a bit "clumsy"
>He was raised into the faith and became a paladin himself, but has to deal with the "weirdness" of being one of the few half-orc paladins as well as the issues of being in his father's shadow and having to make his own way as his "own man"
>Being raised the son of a hero and a less common race he is a bit unassuming in terms of behavior, a trait he gained from years trying not to stand out and not to draw further attention
>He is also a bit (too) serious, in contrast with his father's boisterousness and mother's ditzyness.

Thats fine, though its weird that he knows so much about his Father. In most settings orcs are literally just bipedal, brainless, evil boar-men.

In my DM's setting orcs are savages but not mentally handicapped (eh) nor completely unable to live in civilization.
I can see how certain settings would make the background impossible though.

I'll be honest, I usually tend to go for more unique or uncommon characters, but not after extensively researching the setting to ensure that my character is canonically possible within it.

*but not until after

This is fine as long as you dont stretch things too far. Tons of things are POSSIBLE, but few are plausible or useful to character development.

Well yeah that's more what I meant to say. In addition to aforementioned research I would obviously avoid something that makes me, for example, disproportionately powerful compared to the rest of the party.

its less about stretching power, and more about stretching belief. For example, if you played a beast race, why you were out and about in the civilized world should probably make up the entirety of your character, rather than being a footnote in an enormously eventful background.

Well yeah, I do that. I guess now that I think about how I do things isn't that snowflakey at all compared to the stuff I'm seeing in this thread, which is good to know.

Lizard men are honestly a better race than a lot of the stuff in the player's handbook

I mean, they're certainly less snowflake than tieflings and dragonborn but that's about it.

Dragonborn basically is just Lizard Men.

Your brown haired brown eyed male human fighter doesn't have as interesting of a backstory and personality as you think you've concocted for him, buddy.

>implying I won't laugh as you try and move my girth like the lanky bitch nerd you are
>implying I won't laugh as I slap the phone out of your hands when you try to call the cops
>implying I won't laugh as I send chips of your teeth down your throat when you try to stop me from doing what I want in your cuck game that you're running to service the players

lol

They're also better than elves and gnomes, and make for a good outsider race without being snowflake wank

Almost certainly leagues more interesting than your rainbow colored half-dragon winged heterochromatic hermaphroditic trigender pyrofox with a demon sealed in xir's arm, though

>racial themes
>Rogue
IIT: rogue is a race

This is a very high concentration of autism

This is splat tim he has very interested pernsonality he is probably a squid I think a kid in some sense be wears a dog shirt and has crippling depression he is into smash mouth and my chemical romance he faps to anime charecters mikus his senpai he smothers himself with nutella and screams in arousal he is a fucking mess he is an advid deviantart user his account is flaming dearthwish he faps to all the deviant art shit as he splats all over the screen he also sniffs his collection of animal semen hes fucking terrible I know everyone please hate this person I hate bim even sometime he faps to marina you know he also has a pearl bodypillow steven universe pearl not splatoon pearl he loves sniffing glue and rubbing vaseline all over his thicc asshole he is legally not allowed to vote much like a dog but a homosexual squidkid splat tim is also very autistic thinks skeletons have dicks and has a dick shaped bong he is a walking talking inbodyment of cancer he writed bendy and the inkmachine fanfictions he loved metallica aswell as smash mouth and my chemical romance he hes pretty much into every fetish ever created he always orders boneless pizzas pizza places fucking hate this guy he only eats snickers for meals has alot of health problems he ears so many snicks he shits snickers bars im pretty sure the only thing he drinks is white out mountain dew with whiskey and wd40 he calls it the souls of the innocent its great he usally plays dark souls while drinking this or while he watches my little pony hes the worste inkling ever created his mixtape is stuff of legends though end of part one.

rogues aren't worth the trouble of assigning a race

the fact that only retards choose non-humans

Any concept I don't like is inherently unsalvageable.

I don't give a fuck if they trust me or not. They can leave if they don't like it. They're easily replaced.

half orcs are always rape babies, aasimar are always broody faggots, deal with it :)

stay mad :)

getting your throat slashed will stop you :)

None of your characters are unique or interesting.

yeah he does

Every well written character tends to be unique faggot. Name me one well written character that's just an average joe.

>I've never actually been in a fight so I'll act tough on the internet

lmao bet you've never even killed anyone irl

nah it's better than yours

>the half dragon with tits that can sprout wings and breath fire is basically a lizard
Stop.

no character is unique.